RE: [Sip] Another Revised agenda for SIP et IETF 64

Hi,

>Understood.  The first time that we extended Digest, we did do it with
>a SIP WG document.  It sort of booted the security design.  Because
>the original question asked by the AKA folks was whether this should be
>HTTP-Digest-EAP-AKA, and there needed to be some discussion about why
>not EAP (that was actually mostly with the Security Area, I recall)
>and then some discussion to make sure that SIP Digest use was well thought
>through (this was in 2002, a long time ago).
Here I also feel interested in why not use EAP, then it could be transported over 
various kind of connection.

>But when AKA folks needed to do HTTP AKA-Digest v2, this was not done as
>a SIP document.  It was done as an independent AD-sponsored document
>with security review.
We are also not familiar with AD-sponsored document, does that means 
this document could become independent document out of any working group?
excuse us naive question.

>I'd do one Informational document that is AD sponsored, a non-SIP Informational,
>similar in content to draft-torvinen-http-digest-aka-v2-02.txt, which was
>independent and AD-sponsored, and which is about to come out as RFC 4169.
Here may I ask one question, since there are on IPR statement about it:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/ipr_detail_show.cgi?&ipr_id=591
In this case, this draft still can become an informational RFC?
 
Thanks,
 
-Hui